Comments on change resistance and how complexity happens

Dear Bob …

As a preface: I’ve been in the business since 1981 and I don’t like to let the grass get too long under my feet. So, I’ve changed jobs regularly. Since getting full-time employment has been difficult intermittently, I’ve occasionally entered the contractor/consultant zone. What this means is that I’ve had the opportunity to observe many different IR/IS/IT operating environments, and noticed a few things in passing.

First: A corollary of Inertia applies to people: Once something has become familiar (standard operating procedure: S.O.P.) folks tend to gravitate towards it and build an air of permanence around it.

This does not mean a comfortable familiar, just familiar. Complexity, even when it causes things to need restarts every day, is often considered job security. Standard operating cliches like: “That’s S.O.P.,” “that’s they way its always been done,” “if it ain’t broke…” are substituted for corrective action, often a category of minimal change, and horror greets the prospect that a major process(es) needs be completely reviewed for updates, replacement or removal.

Changes have to be made anyway, so means need be found and dysfunctional reaction dealt with. On the run-up to Y2K some companies discovered that their processes were so out of date and entrenched that in order to remain a business they sold the entire company to an entity that had already done Y2K compliance changes (I was at a large financial services company until December 1999, and they were able to make major M&A plays during that time period).

Change is difficult, and IT management has a history of implementing change for its own sake (remember complexity is job security), so we’re a major part of our own problem and must therefore be the main instigator of any solution.

– Network Specialist

Dear Net …

I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions on some of these. I do agree with you regarding inertia, although the dynamics of human inertia are quite different from the physical version. I’ve come to the conclusion that most human inertia stems from an aversion many people have to compulsory learning.

Once you get something into place and learn it, your brain can stop undertaking the hard work of figuring new stuff out. Not that many people enjoy the process of figuring new stuff out. The result looks like inertia – try to make things work the way they have been.

This isn’t all that bad: Whenever you force an organization to do things differently there’s a short-term loss of effectiveness – a real cost. So there’s some business value in adjusting current systems instead of replacing them. Figuring out when that’s the right answer and when it’s a kludge that will nail you in the long run is the tricky part.

The points I challenge have to do with IT driving change for its own sake and IT driving complexity for job security. I’ve rarely seen this.

I have seen IT suckered by sales pitches for new technologies that offer stupendous ROIs, but being suckered isn’t the same thing. Many early adopters of Lotus Notes fit this description. In every case I know of, IT was guilty of building a Field of Dreams, figuring that if it exists, “they” will come. IT leaders sincerely thought they were providing business benefit, but without understanding how to collaborate with the business to ensure business improvement came out the other end.

As for complexity for its own sake … the way I’ve seen complexity happen is when IT professionals use their ingenuity to figure out clever workarounds to system limitations so as to satisfy business requests. Complexity is the result, but not because of any Machiavellian intent.

Just my two cents worth …

– Bob

——–